Ask YC: Do what you love and the money will follow?
87 comments
I played poker for a living for over 5 years. I never really cared for it, but it paid very well, and so I told myself that if I just did it for a short while, I'd have enough money saved up that I could do whatever I wanted for the next 100.
While that is a solid theory, what happened was that I grew to hate it so much that I never spent enough hours to save up retirement-type amounts of money. I also became largely desensitized to money (when you can win or lose $10k in a day with ease, it's not too hard to convince yourself to buy a $500 camera) and spent way too much.
Eventually I realized that for those reasons, I was never going to get there, no matter how good I had gotten or how profitable the game was, so I left to do a startup. The pay is pretty low now, but I'm happier, because I enjoy the process rather than the results, and there is some realistic chance of a windfall at the end.
I think the optimal strategy is to pick something you enjoy but that can pay the bills. Most people could probably enjoy multiple professions. Choose the one you would enjoy that pays the best.
While that is a solid theory, what happened was that I grew to hate it so much that I never spent enough hours to save up retirement-type amounts of money. I also became largely desensitized to money (when you can win or lose $10k in a day with ease, it's not too hard to convince yourself to buy a $500 camera) and spent way too much.
Eventually I realized that for those reasons, I was never going to get there, no matter how good I had gotten or how profitable the game was, so I left to do a startup. The pay is pretty low now, but I'm happier, because I enjoy the process rather than the results, and there is some realistic chance of a windfall at the end.
I think the optimal strategy is to pick something you enjoy but that can pay the bills. Most people could probably enjoy multiple professions. Choose the one you would enjoy that pays the best.
>I think the optimal strategy is to pick something you enjoy but that can pay the bills. Most people could probably enjoy multiple professions. Choose the one you would enjoy that pays the best.
I think this is pretty good advice, but with a caveat. Enjoyment is not just a boolean function, but varies from unbelievably painful to completely enjoyable. I think is more of a two-dimensional optimization problem than a simple matter of picking the maximal paying element from the column named 'fun and interesting'. Doing java development at a large company and doing python development at a small company would both rank 'fun and interesting' relative to the rest of the total set of available professions, but I would still seriously consider the python position, even though the java position is bound to pay a lot better on average. But maybe you meant that, and I am just misreading.
I think this is pretty good advice, but with a caveat. Enjoyment is not just a boolean function, but varies from unbelievably painful to completely enjoyable. I think is more of a two-dimensional optimization problem than a simple matter of picking the maximal paying element from the column named 'fun and interesting'. Doing java development at a large company and doing python development at a small company would both rank 'fun and interesting' relative to the rest of the total set of available professions, but I would still seriously consider the python position, even though the java position is bound to pay a lot better on average. But maybe you meant that, and I am just misreading.
Best piece of advice I every received from a poster: http://despair.com/potential.html
So, I've really hated my day job for years (ER nurse). It just paid too darn well. And, I've tried a whole bunch of things as possibilities to change careers: theology, philosophy, world religions, painting, sculpting, computer graphics, animation, furniture design, interior architecture, visual effects, video editing... And by trying, I mean, researching the hell out of it, taking formal training or actively studying on my own for more than a year.
Why did I do these things? Because I believed the "Do what you love, and money will follow" mantra. Problem: I wasn't making money doing what I loved, and therefore I had to keep doing what I hated for money, which was being a nurse. I was not willing to do the starving artist/philosopher thing for too long.
Solution: I found something that I like reasonably well, allows me to be creative and think widely and that has a potential to make a decent amount of cash, with potentially a huge financial upside: programming and starting my own business.
The chief problem with the "Do what you love and the money will follow" mantra, is that it essentially paints the career problem and money problem as a binary issue. Either do what you love, or do what you hate. There are many choices in between those things that have varying degrees of financial outcomes.
Another thought: If you do what you love, and feel continually pressured for cash, there is a lot of pressure to compromise yourself and your loves for money. Some handle that better than others. For example, there are a lot of people who start out wanting to be musicians, painters, artists or writers who try to do it for money. The problem comes when the rent is continuously due, and you're broke. You're then stuck with being a writer/painter/musician and needing to make cash. Do you write/paint/compose for purely commercial projects (like an ad agency), or do you only write/paint/compose what you love?
Finally: Speaking from experience, spend some time in LA, and you'll come to the conclusion that there are more people who are trying to chase their dreams and be actors/directors/filmmakers than the market will bear. This leads to a huge culture of abusing the people trying to get their break in those industries. After years of work and studing 3D modeling, animation and image compositing, I finally got offered an entry level job at Sony Pictures Imageworks (Big film VFX house in LA). Salary: $20 an hour, minimum of 60 hours per week if not 80 to 100, and you get laid off after the current movie finishes production in 4 months. You're then unemployed until the next round of FX films start post-production. Why did workers tolerate this? Because there were many more people vying for those jobs than there were positions available.
So, I've really hated my day job for years (ER nurse). It just paid too darn well. And, I've tried a whole bunch of things as possibilities to change careers: theology, philosophy, world religions, painting, sculpting, computer graphics, animation, furniture design, interior architecture, visual effects, video editing... And by trying, I mean, researching the hell out of it, taking formal training or actively studying on my own for more than a year.
Why did I do these things? Because I believed the "Do what you love, and money will follow" mantra. Problem: I wasn't making money doing what I loved, and therefore I had to keep doing what I hated for money, which was being a nurse. I was not willing to do the starving artist/philosopher thing for too long.
Solution: I found something that I like reasonably well, allows me to be creative and think widely and that has a potential to make a decent amount of cash, with potentially a huge financial upside: programming and starting my own business.
The chief problem with the "Do what you love and the money will follow" mantra, is that it essentially paints the career problem and money problem as a binary issue. Either do what you love, or do what you hate. There are many choices in between those things that have varying degrees of financial outcomes.
Another thought: If you do what you love, and feel continually pressured for cash, there is a lot of pressure to compromise yourself and your loves for money. Some handle that better than others. For example, there are a lot of people who start out wanting to be musicians, painters, artists or writers who try to do it for money. The problem comes when the rent is continuously due, and you're broke. You're then stuck with being a writer/painter/musician and needing to make cash. Do you write/paint/compose for purely commercial projects (like an ad agency), or do you only write/paint/compose what you love?
Finally: Speaking from experience, spend some time in LA, and you'll come to the conclusion that there are more people who are trying to chase their dreams and be actors/directors/filmmakers than the market will bear. This leads to a huge culture of abusing the people trying to get their break in those industries. After years of work and studing 3D modeling, animation and image compositing, I finally got offered an entry level job at Sony Pictures Imageworks (Big film VFX house in LA). Salary: $20 an hour, minimum of 60 hours per week if not 80 to 100, and you get laid off after the current movie finishes production in 4 months. You're then unemployed until the next round of FX films start post-production. Why did workers tolerate this? Because there were many more people vying for those jobs than there were positions available.
Logically speaking, sure.
If you do what you're passionate about, you're sure to develop a strong set of skills for that particular subject. A strong set of skills for a subject with a market makes you good competition, at a reasonable price.
As for myself, I remember writing a keylogger in Visual Basic when I was 11 because I wanted to steal my sister's AIM password. I loved everything about software development, and still do. Years later, I'm making 6 figures with Rails.
If you do what you're passionate about, you're sure to develop a strong set of skills for that particular subject. A strong set of skills for a subject with a market makes you good competition, at a reasonable price.
As for myself, I remember writing a keylogger in Visual Basic when I was 11 because I wanted to steal my sister's AIM password. I loved everything about software development, and still do. Years later, I'm making 6 figures with Rails.
I did the exact same thing. Win32 API for the win.
Some problems I have with this saying:
1.It implies the money part flows effortlessly from the "do what you love" part.
From what I've seen, people do something they love and then try and find a way to make money with it. Sometimes they are successful, and sometimes not, but in any case it involves effort to go from doing what you love to doing what you love for money.
2.It implies people have one passion or one reason to be on this earth. That is crap. You can have several passions or you may have none. I have many interests but I can't say for sure that I have a passion about any one thing - yet I've been able to make money following my interests and make money not following my interests.
3.It's often taken as meaning that making money doing something other than when you are doing what you love is somehow a lesser choice. Maybe so, maybe not. Should I fault the programmer whose real passion is ski-boarding because they'd rather make more money or make money doing something they know they can make money at and then use it to enjoy their passion in their spare time rather than making less money as a ski-bum or taking a risk in what may be a dead end venture? I don't think I can.
4.It implies people can't or shouldn't love the pursuit of money. This might be true insofar as money itself is just a store of value or a means to an end. The problem I have is that anyone with a desire for just starting businesses regardless of the product seems to be included, which I think is a wrong categorization. Businesses create wealth, money is just the representation of the wealth created by business. I see nothing wrong with pursuing business for business sake because to be successful in business, for most people, means you are creating value.
So my conclusion is that this saying is more useful for selling books than as real advice.
1.It implies the money part flows effortlessly from the "do what you love" part.
From what I've seen, people do something they love and then try and find a way to make money with it. Sometimes they are successful, and sometimes not, but in any case it involves effort to go from doing what you love to doing what you love for money.
2.It implies people have one passion or one reason to be on this earth. That is crap. You can have several passions or you may have none. I have many interests but I can't say for sure that I have a passion about any one thing - yet I've been able to make money following my interests and make money not following my interests.
3.It's often taken as meaning that making money doing something other than when you are doing what you love is somehow a lesser choice. Maybe so, maybe not. Should I fault the programmer whose real passion is ski-boarding because they'd rather make more money or make money doing something they know they can make money at and then use it to enjoy their passion in their spare time rather than making less money as a ski-bum or taking a risk in what may be a dead end venture? I don't think I can.
4.It implies people can't or shouldn't love the pursuit of money. This might be true insofar as money itself is just a store of value or a means to an end. The problem I have is that anyone with a desire for just starting businesses regardless of the product seems to be included, which I think is a wrong categorization. Businesses create wealth, money is just the representation of the wealth created by business. I see nothing wrong with pursuing business for business sake because to be successful in business, for most people, means you are creating value.
So my conclusion is that this saying is more useful for selling books than as real advice.
It's better advice than this:
Do what you hate for money and the love will follow.
Do what you hate for money and the love will follow.
s/what/who
Still bad advice...
Still bad advice...
My mother is an excellent writer and novelist, but the market has completely dried up for that. Nobody really reads any more.
She's turned to writing scripts though, there seems to be more traction there.
She's turned to writing scripts though, there seems to be more traction there.
I don't know if nobody reads. Nobody reads modern books, perhaps.
It's tough to say something meaningful in a medium that's existed for centuries. You know? So much has already been done that now the medium is shrinking. The people who do remain are less likely to be as talented, because the really talented people have moved on to other things.
Television, for instance. The last 10 years has seen better TV shows than ever existed in the past. The best-written thing I've come across in the last two years was The Wire. I'd compare the quality of writing in that to anything up-to-and-including Shakespeare. And it did stuff that you couldn't have done in a novel. Or in a movie, for that matter.
Mind you, my all-time-favorite novel was published in 2006. And Mark Z Danielewski is still innovating within the form: his House of Leaves is a classic, and it was written just 8 years ago. But those writers are rarer. There's less to be done within the form of pure prose than there was even 40 years ago.
It's tough to say something meaningful in a medium that's existed for centuries. You know? So much has already been done that now the medium is shrinking. The people who do remain are less likely to be as talented, because the really talented people have moved on to other things.
Television, for instance. The last 10 years has seen better TV shows than ever existed in the past. The best-written thing I've come across in the last two years was The Wire. I'd compare the quality of writing in that to anything up-to-and-including Shakespeare. And it did stuff that you couldn't have done in a novel. Or in a movie, for that matter.
Mind you, my all-time-favorite novel was published in 2006. And Mark Z Danielewski is still innovating within the form: his House of Leaves is a classic, and it was written just 8 years ago. But those writers are rarer. There's less to be done within the form of pure prose than there was even 40 years ago.
my all-time-favorite novel was published in 2006
The Road? (I'm extrapolating from what you say about The Wire.)
The Road? (I'm extrapolating from what you say about The Wire.)
I don't know why, but I really can't stand McCarthy. I've tried again and again, and the man is so imprecise with his language. I want to like him, because I like interpretations of his work by, say, the Coen Brothers, but I'll read a few pages of his book and just not be able to take it anymore.
No, my favorite book is a novel called Adverbs, and it's by Daniel Handler, who wrote the kid's Series of Unfortunate Events. I've read it far too many times and I still love it, though now I spend a few months between reading it. And it's just incredibly beautiful. It's a collection of 17 short stories that are all interrelated, and it's playful with language to a fault. It's tough reading the first few times, but it's so worth grasping, because it does stuff I've never seen in other books.
So I don't think it's the best book ever written, but it's enjoyable and it's in love with words, and far too few people have heard it.
No, my favorite book is a novel called Adverbs, and it's by Daniel Handler, who wrote the kid's Series of Unfortunate Events. I've read it far too many times and I still love it, though now I spend a few months between reading it. And it's just incredibly beautiful. It's a collection of 17 short stories that are all interrelated, and it's playful with language to a fault. It's tough reading the first few times, but it's so worth grasping, because it does stuff I've never seen in other books.
So I don't think it's the best book ever written, but it's enjoyable and it's in love with words, and far too few people have heard it.
The Road is brutal and amazing. thanks for mentioning it.
And yet JK Rowling became the richest woman in the UK by writing.
Reading IS dying. Even I, who used to read a hella lot of books are reading a lot less books (but reading a lot more in general), and my attention span is really short now.
another anecdote: i read handfuls of novels and dozens of short stories a month. a book before sleep helps settle the mind. much nicer than working on the computer until i drop.
If what you love is building finance-directed B2B desktop apps then, yeah, you're golden.
I think the key is directing your passion in a broad enough way that you can satisfy an unaddressed market demand. If you love building challenging software, there are many ways you can pragmatically apply that passion if you cast your net wide enough.
On the other hand, if you love building socially directed news-ranking sites with clickable arrows, your options will be somewhat limited.
I think the key is directing your passion in a broad enough way that you can satisfy an unaddressed market demand. If you love building challenging software, there are many ways you can pragmatically apply that passion if you cast your net wide enough.
On the other hand, if you love building socially directed news-ranking sites with clickable arrows, your options will be somewhat limited.
If the goal is to get rich, then do what creates value for others. If the goal is to enjoy every day then do what you love. The luckiest among us are able to figure out how to combine the two and create value while doing something they are passionate about.
Did Gandhi get rich? Does it matter?
Effectively. Like all national politicians, he had the same resources at his disposal that a rich person in his country would have. His ascetic life was voluntarily so.
Social capital is dependent upon the continuing goodwill of others. That is an important restriction. If Gandhi had dropped his ascetic lifestyle, deciding to obtain a mansion, his social capital would have declined dramatically.
Yes, but he'd still have had the mansion and the lifestyle. He'd have just lost the adoring crowds.
People with mansions always have an adoring crowd.
Saddam had a lot of mansions.
He had an adoring crowd too. He just had a much larger opposite crowd.
Would you want to trade places with Gandhi? I wouldn't.
You are missing the point. Ghandi wouldn't trade places with you either.
You are missing the point. Saying that getting rich doesn't matter because Ghandi didn't get rich is silly. You could use that argument, with some hero, in favor of anything.
Who said getting rich doesn't matter? It is what matters to you that is important, for all values of you. Being rich didn't matter to Ghandi. If you do what you love, you are likely to be happy, even if you are not rich. If you just love money, I suppose doing what you love is equivalent to getting rich.
Why does the thought that many people may consider Ghandi's life to be more meaningful than your own upset you so much? Boy, you have an ego...
For the record, Ghandi's accomplishment is not "putting his name in the history books", but rather "being spiritual and political leader of hundreds of millions of people and having a great impact on their lives".
Why does the thought that many people may consider Ghandi's life to be more meaningful than your own upset you so much? Boy, you have an ego...
For the record, Ghandi's accomplishment is not "putting his name in the history books", but rather "being spiritual and political leader of hundreds of millions of people and having a great impact on their lives".
This is just plain getting stupid. You've wandered so far off the topic in a maze of misunderstanding.
And the original poster implied it doesn't matter. And I pointed out that just because it doesn't matter to Ghandi (if it didn't) doesn't mean it shouldn't matter to others. And somehow you managed to derive from that that I am upset because a billion Indians like Ghandi better than me. Brilliant.
Gotta love Sunday conversations.
And the original poster implied it doesn't matter. And I pointed out that just because it doesn't matter to Ghandi (if it didn't) doesn't mean it shouldn't matter to others. And somehow you managed to derive from that that I am upset because a billion Indians like Ghandi better than me. Brilliant.
Gotta love Sunday conversations.
I don't know if it's fruitful to focus on specifically. I think the parent may have meant, "Gandhi is an example of someone who accomplished great things and did what he thought was important, but it didn't make him rich. Would you want to be in like Gandhi in this general regard?"
FYI... Gandhi himself was born to a very affluent family.
Are you implying that you would not want to achieve the accomplishments of Gandhi in your lifetime if it meant living the lifestyle Gadhi lived?
If that is the case I would strongly suggest you reconsider your priorities.
If that is the case I would strongly suggest you reconsider your priorities.
I'm not implying it, I'm stating it. If you would like to endure what he did just to get your name in the history books, you should reconsider your priorities.
And if you wish to emulate Ghandi so much, what are you doing about it? I see from your profile you're a freelance web developer and currency trader. Is that the best route to helping the downtrodden?
I'd be willing to be you've chosen a lifestyle for yourself that's a lot more like mine than Ghandi's, and both are available.
And if you wish to emulate Ghandi so much, what are you doing about it? I see from your profile you're a freelance web developer and currency trader. Is that the best route to helping the downtrodden?
I'd be willing to be you've chosen a lifestyle for yourself that's a lot more like mine than Ghandi's, and both are available.
The accomplishments of Ghandi far outweigh both his reasons for achieving them and the methods he used. Passing judgment on his lifestyle in spite of his feats would be like saying we should disregard the works of Darwin because they offend people. Ghandi didn't get his name in the history books because he lived like a pauper.
I have no desire to emulate Ghandi and I never stated that I did. I recognize when to respect the accomplishments of others.
I have no desire to emulate Ghandi and I never stated that I did. I recognize when to respect the accomplishments of others.
I didn't say I don't respect him or that he wasn't important, and I didn't pass any sort of judgment. I simply said I wouldn't want to be him. There's a pretty large difference.
OP was asking about how to prioritize things in his life, and it's clear that Ghandi is probably not a good model for him.
OP was asking about how to prioritize things in his life, and it's clear that Ghandi is probably not a good model for him.
I didn't pass any sort of judgment. I simply said I wouldn't want to be him.
And then you mentioned all he got is his name being written in the history books. And then did an ad hominem attack on oakmac.
And then you mentioned all he got is his name being written in the history books. And then did an ad hominem attack on oakmac.
I didn't attack him at all. He mentioned that my priorities were wrong because I'd rather not trade places with Ghandi. I pointed out this his must be wrong too, because rather than helping the destitute in Calcutta, or any of the other third world areas, he's making websites and trading currency. When it comes down to it, I doubt he'd trade places with Ghandi either. (And in reality, I think both of our priorites would be wrong if we would make that trade.)
I didn't start any ad hominems, I was simply pointing out that the original idea (that you shouldn't worry about money because Ghandi didn't) was ludicrous.
I didn't start any ad hominems, I was simply pointing out that the original idea (that you shouldn't worry about money because Ghandi didn't) was ludicrous.
Yeah, but Matt always tries to provoke argument. It's what's put him at the center of so many interesting debates.
Your initial reply to me can be rephrased as "I wouldn't want to accomplish all the amazing things that Ghandi did because I wouldn't want to live in poverty my whole life." I hope you understand that his accomplishments outweigh his lifestyle and that if everyone were able to accomplish what he had in his lifetime the world would be a much better place.
I think what you are trying to say is "You don't need to live in poverty in order to accomplish great things." In which case, I agree with you, but I believe you should pick your words more carefully.
This will be my last reply; I don't want this thread to become a pissing contest.
I think what you are trying to say is "You don't need to live in poverty in order to accomplish great things." In which case, I agree with you, but I believe you should pick your words more carefully.
This will be my last reply; I don't want this thread to become a pissing contest.
And I think a more accurate rephrasing would be "I wouldn't want to accomplish what Ghandi accomplished because I don't want to suffer that much."
He's not objecting to the low social status Ghandi had, but the hardships that were necessary for him to endure to obtain what he wanted.
He's not objecting to the low social status Ghandi had, but the hardships that were necessary for him to endure to obtain what he wanted.
Exactly.
The Gandhi part aside, I agree with your sentiments.
Does money matter?
The response I hear from most people is that, "It will matter when you need to put food on the table". This is undeniable but after we are able to accomplish this task whats next? From that point on money is not and should not be the primary driving force.
I say primary because there are things in life that people enjoy doing that needs some amount of money. So I would say,
a) Find what you love (x) b) If the process of completing x needs money, then seek the money needed for it.
Our ability to do this process well depends on how focused we are. since, it is easy to get distracted in a world filled with things we "want".
Does money matter?
The response I hear from most people is that, "It will matter when you need to put food on the table". This is undeniable but after we are able to accomplish this task whats next? From that point on money is not and should not be the primary driving force.
I say primary because there are things in life that people enjoy doing that needs some amount of money. So I would say,
a) Find what you love (x) b) If the process of completing x needs money, then seek the money needed for it.
Our ability to do this process well depends on how focused we are. since, it is easy to get distracted in a world filled with things we "want".
Money matters a lot. You can be unhappy with money, but you can't be happy without it.
Society has tricked many into thinking the desire for wealth is base or shallow, just like it has with many natural human urges. It's an idea that's happily perpetuated by those who have it. Just as men have, throughout history, preached monogamy while cheating every chance they got because if every other man is not actively mating and you are, your genes will survive better, the wealthy have perpetuated the idea that wealth is evil to decrease competition. But hey, don't worry, your suffering in this life will be rewarded in the next.
It's easy to see this every time the Pope proclaims that it's easier for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle from his golden castle in his golden city.
Society has tricked many into thinking the desire for wealth is base or shallow, just like it has with many natural human urges. It's an idea that's happily perpetuated by those who have it. Just as men have, throughout history, preached monogamy while cheating every chance they got because if every other man is not actively mating and you are, your genes will survive better, the wealthy have perpetuated the idea that wealth is evil to decrease competition. But hey, don't worry, your suffering in this life will be rewarded in the next.
It's easy to see this every time the Pope proclaims that it's easier for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle from his golden castle in his golden city.
In the first statement you made, you can replace money with any other essential need that human beings have.
My perspective has always been this; after you have achieved your needs for the money you need to stay alive, what do you do next?
As I was saying before we should first find what we like and then look at the money required to carry it out. If we were to take the other approach where we first look for the money and then find something to do in our life that makes us happy with the money, we would invariably hurt ourselves in the process. As somebody mentioned before in the comments, the pursuit of money distracts from the task at hand. This leads to an unhappy process and a poorly completed task.
But again it takes focus to carry this out. Focus not only on what you do but also on what makes you happy.
Happiness is but a collection of moments strung together which when reflected upon gives us the relative feeling of joy.
My perspective has always been this; after you have achieved your needs for the money you need to stay alive, what do you do next?
As I was saying before we should first find what we like and then look at the money required to carry it out. If we were to take the other approach where we first look for the money and then find something to do in our life that makes us happy with the money, we would invariably hurt ourselves in the process. As somebody mentioned before in the comments, the pursuit of money distracts from the task at hand. This leads to an unhappy process and a poorly completed task.
But again it takes focus to carry this out. Focus not only on what you do but also on what makes you happy.
Happiness is but a collection of moments strung together which when reflected upon gives us the relative feeling of joy.
This is quite an assertion. To make sure I'm getting this right, I can't be happy without money to buy my happiness, and if I ever believe I can, I am simply giving into the group-think that the upper class has foisted upon me. Either I'm driven by the insatiable desire for money, or I am a cog of the bourgeoisie?
I think this is complete crap. The most unhappy person I can think of right now doesn't buy into the money is evil philosophy; quite the opposite in fact. The problem he has is that he doesn't know what he wants, so he is defaulting to money as an indication of wealth. And I can think of a number of people I know who are happy, but aren't particularly high on the social ladder, nor do they really want to be. What they consider wealth right now -- their children, and time to work on their hobbies -- is something they can't trade for on the open market. Please keep this in mind: wealth is not the same thing as money. Wealth is what you want, money is simply one means, but not the only one, of getting what you want. For those who don't know what they want, it seems that they default to treating money as an end, rather than as a means.
To be clear, I'm not arguing the opposite of your claim, I am arguing that the desire money is not good or evil; it is neutral. The real question of motives becomes where that money will be spent, or if not to be spent, why it is being hoarded. If hoarded only as a metaphorical yard stick of worthiness to the people supposedly oppressing the rest of us, it seems like a waste of time. If it gets you the things you need to make you happier, then it isn't a waste of time.
I think this is complete crap. The most unhappy person I can think of right now doesn't buy into the money is evil philosophy; quite the opposite in fact. The problem he has is that he doesn't know what he wants, so he is defaulting to money as an indication of wealth. And I can think of a number of people I know who are happy, but aren't particularly high on the social ladder, nor do they really want to be. What they consider wealth right now -- their children, and time to work on their hobbies -- is something they can't trade for on the open market. Please keep this in mind: wealth is not the same thing as money. Wealth is what you want, money is simply one means, but not the only one, of getting what you want. For those who don't know what they want, it seems that they default to treating money as an end, rather than as a means.
To be clear, I'm not arguing the opposite of your claim, I am arguing that the desire money is not good or evil; it is neutral. The real question of motives becomes where that money will be spent, or if not to be spent, why it is being hoarded. If hoarded only as a metaphorical yard stick of worthiness to the people supposedly oppressing the rest of us, it seems like a waste of time. If it gets you the things you need to make you happier, then it isn't a waste of time.
Well, you totally misunderstood it. You can't be happy if you're worried about your bills or where your next meal is coming from.
I know of no one who has been tricked by the wealthy into believing they should sacrifice the most basic necessities of life for the sake of some greater ideal. If you know of someone, I will be happy to stand corrected on this point.
But I think we are confusing the idea between those who have no money at all, and those who have no disposable income after the necessities of survival. Both might sound similarly oppressive, but there is a huge difference between them. The former has one obvious form of wealth that they are coveting, and would be the same for everyone in that position; and for the latter there is much more latitude regarding what they consider wealth. They are no longer focused on mere survival, but instead on fulfillment. When people say to me they have no money, they are usually referring to the latter situation. It is probably why it seems like we are arguing past one another.
I think the way I would phrase what you said is "Money matters to the degree that what you want/need can be obtained by the exchange of money." This I would agree with. The way you phrased it, though, it seemed as though you were arguing for the earning of money as a means to fight against the wealthy class's desire to hold you down. As soon as obtaining it becomes a tool to flaunt those who say that obtaining it is crass and shallow, then I see the whole thing become somewhat pointless.
I hope this makes some sense.
But I think we are confusing the idea between those who have no money at all, and those who have no disposable income after the necessities of survival. Both might sound similarly oppressive, but there is a huge difference between them. The former has one obvious form of wealth that they are coveting, and would be the same for everyone in that position; and for the latter there is much more latitude regarding what they consider wealth. They are no longer focused on mere survival, but instead on fulfillment. When people say to me they have no money, they are usually referring to the latter situation. It is probably why it seems like we are arguing past one another.
I think the way I would phrase what you said is "Money matters to the degree that what you want/need can be obtained by the exchange of money." This I would agree with. The way you phrased it, though, it seemed as though you were arguing for the earning of money as a means to fight against the wealthy class's desire to hold you down. As soon as obtaining it becomes a tool to flaunt those who say that obtaining it is crass and shallow, then I see the whole thing become somewhat pointless.
I hope this makes some sense.
"Money matters to the degree that what you want/need can be obtained by the exchange of money."
Well said. It depends on what somebody's basic necessities are. For me, necessities includes books and music and the occasional trip to the city and a good meal. I could live on less, but I'd be miserable if I didn't get to enjoy those things frequently. If I had to use a worse computer than the one I have, I'd be less happy. So for me, making money is a means to more effortlessly obtaining the things that I want. I think that's healthy so long as the things that I want have value.
Well said. It depends on what somebody's basic necessities are. For me, necessities includes books and music and the occasional trip to the city and a good meal. I could live on less, but I'd be miserable if I didn't get to enjoy those things frequently. If I had to use a worse computer than the one I have, I'd be less happy. So for me, making money is a means to more effortlessly obtaining the things that I want. I think that's healthy so long as the things that I want have value.
OK, here are 3 billion Zimbabwean dollars. Are you able to be happy yet?
Money is a placeholder.
Money is a placeholder.
Or:
step b2) If getting x requires money, work to make it cheaper or free.
step b2) If getting x requires money, work to make it cheaper or free.
What if you're not remotely arsed about getting mega-rich, but just want to get by and earn enough money to survive doing what you love? I'd rather live frugally and work on something fun than be loaded but despising what I spend ten hours a day doing.
This is of course oversimplified. The argument seems to me like:
1) If you love what you do, you will care. You will go the extra mile to do it right.
2) After a couple of years of doing what you love, and caring, and improving every day, you will be very good at what you do. You will be able to beat most competitors (who don't really care and are in for a quick buck anyway).
3) Assuming your clients can tell the difference, you will never lack work.
4) Assuming your market is big enough to support you and your more important competitors, you will be able to pick clients, and rise your fees, and have lots of work anyway.
5) Then money follows the good work.
Now, there are 2 big assumptions here. One is that the world will be able to figure out how great you are and how lame are most of the others. If they cannot, or doesn't care, you are in a lemon market. The scam artists grow rich and the good practicioners get exploited. Not a nice place to be, unless what you love is take advantage of other people.
The other big assumption is that there is enough demand for what you love to do. By example, if you love classic music and want to be a piano concertist, good luck with that. There is not enough demand for that skill to support but a handfull of performers. Unless your talent is that of a genius or have all the right connections, you will not survive long enough to actually learn to play well. Again, not a nice place to be.
What you want to do if not to do what you like the most. You want to ask yourself what are those things that you like. Get a list of a dozen items. Cut half of those that seem like lemon markets, the cut again by half those whose market is to small.
You will end up with a couple of solid options of what you can realistically pursue.
Now, there are 2 big assumptions here. One is that the world will be able to figure out how great you are and how lame are most of the others. If they cannot, or doesn't care, you are in a lemon market. The scam artists grow rich and the good practicioners get exploited. Not a nice place to be, unless what you love is take advantage of other people.
The other big assumption is that there is enough demand for what you love to do. By example, if you love classic music and want to be a piano concertist, good luck with that. There is not enough demand for that skill to support but a handfull of performers. Unless your talent is that of a genius or have all the right connections, you will not survive long enough to actually learn to play well. Again, not a nice place to be.
What you want to do if not to do what you like the most. You want to ask yourself what are those things that you like. Get a list of a dozen items. Cut half of those that seem like lemon markets, the cut again by half those whose market is to small.
You will end up with a couple of solid options of what you can realistically pursue.
Happiness and money are not correlated.
You are always 100% in control of your emotions: the choice to be happy is up to you regardless of what you're doing or what's happening to you. Money (or value) will come from following fundamental principles of success: diligence, hard work, honesty, etc. You often find the two together, but neither is required for the other.
For more information read Dan Gilbert's "Stumbling on Happiness" and Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning."
You are always 100% in control of your emotions: the choice to be happy is up to you regardless of what you're doing or what's happening to you. Money (or value) will come from following fundamental principles of success: diligence, hard work, honesty, etc. You often find the two together, but neither is required for the other.
For more information read Dan Gilbert's "Stumbling on Happiness" and Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning."
I'm not sure I agree that you're always 100% in control of your emotions. If you think you're in control, they're not really emotions anymore; you've suppressed them, and replaced them with what you wanted to feel, which is fine but isn't really the same thing. I do agree that your general outlook will have great influence on whether you are happy or not though.
Generally speaking, I think you're more likely to be happy if you are honest about your emotions and then follow them in deciding what to do. Then it won't really matter if you make money or not, because you'll be happy to do what you're doing (unless you decide that making money is a goal in and of itself, in which case you'd need to make money in order to feel that you've accomplished what you set out to do).
Generally speaking, I think you're more likely to be happy if you are honest about your emotions and then follow them in deciding what to do. Then it won't really matter if you make money or not, because you'll be happy to do what you're doing (unless you decide that making money is a goal in and of itself, in which case you'd need to make money in order to feel that you've accomplished what you set out to do).
A basic issue with this is that people love doing many different things (and are curious to try new stuff all the time), so there is little time to get particularly good at them. It's hard to make money from things you are not good at.
If you only focus on doing what you love then there's no guarantee money
will follow. However if you are able to connect with others who appreciate
what you love to do enough to sponsor your doing it, then there will be the
potential for money to follow. It is also necessary to balance time
between attending to the things that can generate this potential and the
things necessary to make that distibution channel sufficiently
efficient. Ignoring your channel just means your potential for money goes to waste
or ends up making someone else wealthy instead of you.
I think it's not all that clear with the question. How much money? If we're talking about money you get from your regular job and you feel okay about working for someone - then the answer is yes. If you feel you don't like working for someone and will only be happy working on your own stuff - then the answer is "not necessary". From what I've seen and heard, good money is a result of different (for each person) combination of professional skills, business skills, persistence and luck. And you never know if your combinations' going to make you rich.
When you do what you really love, you don't count the money. Your pay-off is from the sense of accomplishment. Doing something for love and wishing that the money follows really depends on who else gains value from what you do. E.g. living in a log cabin in Alaska - minimal payback. Creating, building and selling iPods - huge payback. The difference being not many people are chuffed at you living in a log cabin. Lot of people are very chuffed at having the music they love when they want it and having a cool gadget to play it on.
Or if what you love isn't very lucrative, make lots of money by whatever means necessary (within reason) to allow you to do what you love later.
The problem with that is if you take a long time to make enough money to do that, you've just wasted all that time doing something you don't love.
The problem with that is if you take a long time to make enough money to do that, you've just wasted all that time doing something you don't love.
You don't have to love your job in order to be happy. If it provides you with the money you need and still leaves you time to do the things you love, is it horrible not to love it?
And what if loving your job results in you neglecting other important parts of your life?
And what if loving your job results in you neglecting other important parts of your life?
You need three things: skill, love, and market.
skill + love - market = hobby
skill - love + market = job
skill + love + market = career
I like Mike Rowe's advice on working: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-udsIV4Hmc
Its true as long as money != unfathomable riches.
I rather do something I love and not get any money at all than doing something I hate for all of the money in the world.
It might - if anything it'll help you get through the long hard slog to the pot of gold - if there is one at all.
Yet another version:
Do what you love and happiness will follow.
How about that?
Do what you love and figure out how to make money follow.
Maybe it works if you learn to love making money.
Has worked for me, so far, but I love hacking...
Follow the money, and you'll love what you do.
Quoting Austrian actress and inventor Hedy Lamarr (1913-2000):
"I know why most people never get rich. They put the money ahead of the job. If you just think of the job, the money will automatically follow. This never fails."
So, do what you love. Excel at what you do. One day you might get rich... or NOT. Either way, you will have led a productive and interesting life. Cheers.
"I know why most people never get rich. They put the money ahead of the job. If you just think of the job, the money will automatically follow. This never fails."
So, do what you love. Excel at what you do. One day you might get rich... or NOT. Either way, you will have led a productive and interesting life. Cheers.
I am glad I didn't take this advice when I was a dishwasher.
Not necessarily true - if you were really passionate about washing dishes, maybe you would have started a dish washing company, organized a dish washing union, or whatever :-P
"Excel at what you do" is not passion. It is admirable to do the current job the best you can, but I think a discontent with the current job has fueled many entrepreneurs.
Quite true. I would argue that loving what one does is necessary to attain excellence. But it certainly is not sufficient.
Excelling in your field gets noticed. It did when I was a d*mn good dishwasher. Had I chosen to, that could easily had been my ticket into a some kind of catering career. I prioritized college, though, so now I'm just a mediocre procrastinator :)
To every rule there's an exception ;-)
If doing what you love has a market, yes, the money will follow. If doing what you love does not have a market, it doesn't matter how much you love it. For example, there is a market for hybrid cars. There is not a market for flying cars, even though the relevant technology - fold-up wings and so on - is available. So if you love making hybrids, great, the money will indeed follow. If you love making flying cars, sorry, no market there. So the trick I guess is to find something you love, that also has a market. Not the easiest thing in the world to figure out.
The refrain, "Do what you love and the money will follow," is repeatedly frequently.
Is it truth? Can you think of examples of doing something you'd love but it not provide for your financially? ("I love living in a log cabin in Alaska!")
Can you point to examples in your own life where you did follow this advice -- and it didn't pan out?
And if you share, maybe you can give us hackers an attempt to figure out why it didn't work out -- and how we can improve our own odds as we follow our passion in the future.